The upside down of the traditional thought on user interface

User interface (UI, or human-computer interface) is a central concept in modern software development. Essentially, UI provides the way how humans may interact with computers. Given the World Wide Web as the background, UI represents how the real world interacts to the virtual world and vice versa.

There is an interesting question about UI on the Web. Should the UI be an external component to its software or be an internal component?

Sound silly? In tradition, an UI is unquestionably an external component with respect to its software. We may envision UI to be the cover wraps its internal executable programs. However, does it mean that UI must be in this form?

Let us turn to a natural phenomenon. We humans live in this world (as well as many other creatures). In fact, every one of us may see ourselves as an independent world that is interacting with the shared external world, which composes of all the natural resources such as air and water. Therefore, there is an interface between the two "worlds". As a matter of fact, however, much (if not all of) the UI is located internally with respect to our own world (i.e., our body) such as lung (exchanging air) or stomach (exchanging water). The external components of our world (such as skin) are essentially for protection and identification besides few supporting on interacting to the external world. Such an analogy leads to an interesting question, could UI on the Web also primarily be an internal component in contrast to an external component to the respective Web applications? Maybe this one is just too silly a question to ask since the non-external ones on the Web cannot be an UI by definition. Then, what is Web UI really? May somebody give a better answer in the philosophical sense but not the technological sense?

From GeoCities to MySpace, another side of Web Evolution

Recently, there are two news, seemly unrelated but actually told a common story, that have been buzzed over the Web. The first is that Yahoo is shutting GeoCities down. The second is that MySpace is in trouble, if not dead yet. The two news show us the progress of Web evolution on another side.

GeoCities and MySpace are nearly identical to each other according to Web evolution. In fact, MySpace is GeoCities 2.0. GeoCities offered the Web-1.0 generation a free place to set up their homespaces in Web 1.0 as well as MySpace offered the Web-2.0 generation a free place to set up their homespaces in Web 2.0. Despite the superficial difference between the two sites such as their graphic layouts and embedded services, they share a common mission and march on the Web in the identical way. The role GeoCities played in Web 1.0 is exactly the role MySpace plays in Web 2.0. The rise of either of the sites represented the rise of a particular stage of the Web (respectively Web 1.0 and Web 2.0), while the decaying of the sites represented the sunset of the respective stages.

As how GeoCities decays, the problem of MySpace is the same. GeoCities has never figured out a way to enter a new age, especially after it was acquired by Yahoo. Yahoo had proved itself a resistant of Web 2.0 for long time. In similar, MySpace is lost in Web 2.0. After it is acquired by the News Corp., the future of MySpace becomes dim. It is unquestionable that the leaders of News Corp. know how to make money. What these executives do not know is, however, that to a cutting-edge Web service, losing the ability of continuously evolving on the Web equals to be dead. A dead service certainly can make money no longer no matter how superior it is managed. History, again, shows us how repeatable it is disregarding the "smartness" of human beings. We cannot be against to the objective laws! And this is why the research of Web evolution is truly valuable.

Mind, Gene, Spirit

According to Wired, scientists have started to study how brains are expressed in genes. In the other words, which portion of human genes decides the growth of brain in contrast to controlling the growth of the other part of our bodies such as hand and foot?

Is this project interesting? Certainly. Based on the assumption that most of the human behaviors are controlled and determined by brains, the project, if ever it would succeed, might reveal us the answer of a question in long history---where thinking comes. But, is the assumption as sound as it appears being?

This blog intends to share creative product of human mind. In fact, the name of the blog is about thinking---an unique mind behavior. Philosophically, however, I always believe that mind is not only a product of mass computation but also (and more crucially) a product of spirit inspiration.

I do not lean to the viewpoint that Newton thought of the Universal Law of Gravitation under the apple tree was primarily due to some weird, unusual, but fascinating chemical reaction occasionally occurred in his brain at the moment. If it were the case, why in nowadays we witness much less great discoveries, innovations, and philosophies than a few centuries ago, while we are in an age that not only significantly outnumbers our ancestors, but also is much more knowledgeable in general than our ancestors. If genius thought is primarily due to unusual mass computation in brains and we agree to that the whole set of knowledge unknown is infinite, we certainly should already have many Newton-like scientists in these centuries. In reality obviously we have few. But the number is incomparable to the number if it truly follows a normal random theory, which it should be only if our thinking really is decided by the objective mass-based brain computation.

I believe the existence of spirit and God. The project may lead to great results. But it cannot answer the question we wish to be answered.

"Internet is not for Information, yet!" in China

Gang Lu has a brilliant post about microblogging in China. In the post, he shared that in China "Internet is not for Information, yet!" The quote is indeed a crucial point that all western Internet businesses must learn to be successful at China. Due to various reasons (especially the political reasons as well as some sort of historical tradition), Internet in China is not about information, it's about entertainment. This insight is a modern interpretation of a long-history idiom in Chinese history---莫谈国事 (do not talk on the affairs of state).


Until now, 莫谈国事 is still an important part of the life of Chinese. The emergence of World Wide Web (supposed to be able to change the custom) has not been able to change it yet. Lu's post tells us that the idiom has only extended its influence from the real world to the virtual world in China.

Xu Jinglei (Chinese: 徐静蕾), one of the most well-known celebrities in China and whose blog is known to be the No.1 personal blog in visiting numbers in China (and probably in the world). She is known to be a belle not only in her appearance, but also in her mind and brain. However, 莫谈国事 is also one of her maxim to ensure the popularity of her blog in China. In fact, the Chinese Characters 莫谈国事, reading from right to left, shown above is written by Miss Xu.

Certainly, however, it is not a duty for western Internet business to try to change the culture. By contrast, they need to learn to be customized for the culture to succeed.

Art and Engineering

How to be a successful business? How to be a successful Internet business? These questions puzzled many entrepreneurs; and the puzzle continues. Set the puzzle be the background, it makes us better understand the recent declared Google departure by Douglas Bowman.

I am sympathizing Bowman's experiences. However, history tells us that it takes time for business to evolve from engineering-dominating to art-dominating, though such an evolution is nearly certain. The reason is not hard to explain. In the beginning, novel innovation on technology breaks the wall and starts a new sector of business. It is like the Google at present. When time moves forward, technology becomes mature. Thus, art in design becomes a dominant power to determine the fate of business.

Bowman, the future stands beside you.

"only three things on the Internet that have made money"

A recent New York Times Technology article reports an interesting interview with Steve Ballmer, the chief executive of Microsoft. Yet the article does not really address much news that is truly new to us, I am particularly interested in a sentence spoken by Mr. Ballmer.

"There are only three things on the Internet that have made money: Amazon, eBay and Google."

Mr. Ballmer intuitively recognized what I mentioned about Web evolution. There are three basic types of Web resources that are accumulated in the evolution of the Web---data, services, and links. A successful Internet business is the one that can embody one type of human mind to a form of valuable asset on the Web. Coincidentally, I have also used Amazon, eBay, and Google as the examples that have successfully embodied static mind asset (data), dynamic mind asset (service), and connective mind asset (link) respectively. So, I have a few last words to tell Mr. Ballmer: please, the successfulness is not because search leads to money, but due to implementing a successful way of constructing profitable mind asset.

Consciousness has no single "seat" in brain

NewScientist has an interesting summary of some newest progress on consciousness research. One statement, however, catches my attention and thinking. It is said that "Consciousness is more a question of dynamics, than of a local activity."

What does it mean when we embody consciousness onto the Web? This was the question I was thinking when reading the line. When originally we mention collective consciousness on the Web, we think of a group of embodied and "seated" mind and make them collaborate each other. Now I am curious to think whether collaborative consciousness is indeed the consciousness itself. That is, there is actually no consciousness when there is no collaborative. If we apply this thought to the research of linked data, however, it means that actually every individual piece of data itself should not be the center of issue. By contrast, a mechanism of collaboration among the whatever data is much more valuable and essential. I am wondering whether this is indeed the problem behind the present, slowly progressing achievement of linked data.